In the case of Ross v. Aguirre, a dispute arose over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Ross, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original Mexican owners before it became part of the United States territory following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. However, Aguirre argued that under this treaty and subsequent legislation by Congress (the Act of March 3rd, 1851), all claims to such lands were required to be presented for confirmation within two years - which Ross failed to do. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Aguirre stating that even if there was an error made during initial proceedings regarding evidence admissibility or interpretation of law related to Spanish/Mexican grants; these errors did not affect substantial rights as they would have been unavailing due to non-compliance with requirements set forth by Congress for asserting title based on foreign grants after cession.

In the dissenting opinion for Ross v. Aguirre, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of international law. He contended that a U.S. consul did not have jurisdiction to try an American citizen for a crime committed in Shanghai, China because it violated China’s sovereignty rights over its own territory. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of treaties between the United States and China which they believed granted such authority to consuls; instead, he asserted these treaties only allowed consuls to settle civil disputes among Americans or serve as intermediaries in criminal cases involving Americans before Chinese courts. Lastly, Justice Harlan expressed concern about potential abuses of power by consular officials if they were given judicial powers without any oversight from other branches of government.